What is Secularism?

I really don't think quisquose doesn't want to discuss it - it's simply a matter of [within the context of the thread, secularism] providing you with a 'secularist' point of view: religion has nothing to do with the State or its workings (expressed as statutes governing e.g. the sub-topic at hand, employment).

 

It's only ever an "issue" because the person of faith considers it to be, and considers their freedom of religious expression impinged.

Absolutely. Hence my emphasis of "should" in my posts.

The concept of secularism really is simple, and its neutrality actually positions individual rights is the most equitable manner possible.

However, there is always a chance that one of these batpoo crazy cases might be won by the likes of Nadia Eweida, which is why the Christian Legal Centre keeps throwing its unlimited amounts of money at these types of cases.

What multicultural faith?[/Quote]

 

Very good, well spotted

 

 

Do you think that "people should be able to practice their religion within the law?" You seem to be implying that people should not be able to wear clothing or jewellery that identifies them as part of a religion.[/Quote]

 

No I'm not, I'm using examples of areas that may come into the spotlight, the only time I mentioned that I didn't think clothing should be specifically allowed was the face covering, in certain jobs, and I would argue that there is no religious, only cultural basis for said covering.

 

It surely won't surprise you that the views of 'secularists' are as varied as those of the general population?[/Quote]

 

Indeed they are, which is why I want to get a broader view of what indivuduals think.

 

I note that you keep saying people haven't answered your question, but it seems to me they have. Perhaps you ought to restate it?

 

Perhaps it should be taken in the context it's meant rather than over complicated?

You can't just say they only ever come up when the person of faith considers there freedom of expression has been impinged as though it's a non issue.

If you accept the initial, reasonably simple premise (pretty much black and white indeed) that secularism is based on religion being a matter of strictly personal interest (and which therefore has no influence whatsoever on what rules govern a secular society - i.e. 'The Law and its Instruments'), then whenever such "things" or situations occur, the acid test is whether the 'new' claims of the religious person extend beyond the boundary of "strictly personal interest".

That's like saying cases of murder only ever come up when someone has been killed.

it doesn't make it any less important when the issue does come up.

Following the analogy, a secular country has laws to prevent religion becoming a point of division or contention in very many settings indeed.

E.g., in France, secularism is contitutional. Since the Constitution is the highest piece of legislation in the land, all laws established under and in conformity with the Constitution (regardless of whether it's employment, crime, etc. statutes) are secular by transition.

The ultimate narrowing down of this principle, at the individual level, is e.g. no christian crosses, jewish caps, hindu turbans, islamic veils, etc. etc. in French state schools (since pretty much the establishment of state schools in the year dot, over 100 years ago, when the country was much more, and very predominantly, Catholic than now).

Now, as an individual -and native of the above, and product of the above secular system- you will generally find me smack in the middle, Solomon-like, of most pro/anti arguments concerned with the sort of religious quandaries you brought up.

I will gladly let any person embrace whatever religion of whichever persuasion and practice it to their heart's content - so long as it is not a militant form of practice (in any form - including wearing crosses, caps, veils, etc. in public) and is not impinging my own liberties/restricting or attacking the very principle of secularity. So, yes, I will argue for banning the islamic veil from public places. But I will also argue for the right of women to wear that veil at home, should they so choose (rather than it being banned entirely and altogether, for pseudo-feminist reasons).

No I'm not, I'm using examples of areas that may come into the spotlight, the only time I mentioned that I didn't think clothing should be specifically allowed was the face covering, in certain jobs, and I would argue that there is no religious, only cultural basis for said covering.

And what would you think if your religious beliefs prescribed a specific dress?

Would you be happy for someone who didn't share your beliefs to dismiss your views as 'incorrect'?

And what would you think if your religious beliefs prescribed a specific dress?

 

Would you be happy for someone who didn't share your beliefs to dismiss your views as 'incorrect'?

I'm not dismissing them as incorrect, I'm saying we should go into it and see what the religion actually says.

Regarding my own religion, I have dismissed many aspects that don't tally with the scriptures and are founded on a cultural basis, being outside those specific cultures has allowed me to do so quite easily, so if someone disagreed with say, the way I practiced, I would be more than happy to mutually explore what was said from the religions point of view.

I'm not dismissing them as incorrect, I'm saying we should go into it and see what the religion actually says.

Religion is a man-made construct. It is feasible to have a religion that says anything you like. Where do you go from there?

I have to say, I do like this article by Ian Dunt on British secularism in http://www.politics.co.uk

Eric Pickles' treacherous attack on British values

The great traditional British value is this: Do what you like as long as you don't stop what I'm doing. It is the value of John Stuart Mill, of Winston Churchill, of Joe Strummer. Those who demand a Christian country of Christian values are traitors to British culture.

Secular multiculuralists are not the enemies of religion. We are its defenders. Unless each religion is kept in check, it threatens the others. Muslims and Christians may be feeling awfully chummy at the moment because they consider atheism a greater threat than each other. That won't last forever. We are the nursery school teachers who make sure all the children can play in a safe area and not hurt each other.

Religion is a man-made construct.

awooga.

Tautology Alert

Indeed they are, which is why I want to get a broader view of what indivuduals think.

It's irrelevant what individuals think. The law is structured in a way that, as far as it can, protects the rights of individuals in a way that doesn't give one group a privileged position over another group or a group more privilege than an individual and vice versa.